The John Dehlin Quiz In Support Of A Change Within Lds Regarding Ssa And Ordaining Women

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Actually, I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised at my referenced quote, since you really don't know me at all, Scott.

 

I had you pegged as one who would not purposely present a quote out of context. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption.

 

I too am familiar with the quote (and many/most/all of his writings). My personal belief is that brother Brigham believed that polygamy was a requirement for entering into the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, and taught the same.

 

 

Well I don't know where you get that. It's not sustained by the discourse you cited, when the quote is viewed in context.

Yes, I believe that was his position.

 

Brigham Young was a man of very bold beliefs.

 

Other than your own misunderstanding of this particular discourse can you show anywhere in the writings of Brigham Young or other 19th century Church leaders where they believed that no one except the comparatively few who were called to practice plurality of wives would attain exaltation?

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

but it doesn't say it's temporary.  It says it is to be practiced if God commands it, right?  Anyone in 1865 could very well be under the impression that polygamy was commanded until Christ would come and beyond.  This reference does not fulfill the CFR.  it does not suggest polygamy would be rescinded in the future.

The demand was this: "Show me a source prior to 1890 that said polygamy would be rescinded in the future?"

 

If monogamy is the default condition and plural marriage is the exception, the implication is clear that it would one day be rescinded.

 

Whether people understood it properly at the time is another matter. But it is a pre-1890 source.

[CV75]

Like Cursor, I believe that BY believed it was necessary to receive the highest level of exaltation.  Not just belief or sustaining, but actual practice.  Both the quotes I provided support that ("only men who ENTER into polygamy").  The belief that it was required for the highest levels of exaltation also helps explain post-manifesto polygamy.

I agree, but my point is that his instruction was limited for the people of his day and age, under his stewardship and revelation, so from that standpoint of course he beleived it was required; I'm sure he also wouldn't have argued if he had gotten the Manifesto and not President Woodruff (would you?). He would not have condemned those who had the faith but lacked the opportunity.

 

And he didn't come back in a dream to tell President Woodruff that the Manifesto was wrong, so he obviously didn't feel that strongly about it!

[cursor]

I had you pegged as one who would not purposely take a quote out of context. Maybe I was wrong in that assumption.

 

Well I don't know where you get that. It's not sustained by the discourse you cited, when the quote is viewed in context.

Other than your own misunderstanding of this particular discourse can you show anywhere in the writings of Brigham Young or other 19th century Church leaders where they believed that no one except the comparatively few who were called to practice plurality of wives would attain exaltation?

 

You're taking potshots at the wrong target, brother.

 

Well I don't know where you get that. It's not sustained by the discourse you cited, when the quote is viewed in context.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

Other than your own misunderstanding of this particular discourse ... 

 

So, obviously any "misunderstanding" negates any interpretation I might have of Brigham Young's intended message.

 

Other than your own misunderstanding of this particular discourse can you show anywhere in the writings of Brigham Young or other 19th century Church leaders where they believed that no one except the comparatively few who were called to practice plurality of wives would attain exaltation?

 

Beyond the very strong opinions of Brigham Young, who (in that era) would you suggest could offer reasonable balance?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, but my point is that his instruction was limited for the people of his day and age, under his stewardship and revelation, so from that standpoint of course he beleived it was required.

But even in his day and age and under his stewardship, most people were not required to practice it. Most of them couldn't. It is contrary to the justice of God -- and hardly makes sense -- that they would be held accountable for something they could not do.

 

Again it must be viewed in the context of the discourse, that they must be polygamists "in their faith," (that is, they must accept it in principle and concept) even if they were unable or not called to practice it literally.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You're taking potshots at the wrong target, brother.

Not a potshot. I am sincere in saying I didn't think you were disposed to present a quotation out of context. You ought to view that as a compliment.

 

 

So, obviously any "misunderstanding" negates any interpretation I might have of Brigham Young's intended message.

 

If an interpretation is wrong, it is wrong.

 

 

 

Beyond the very strong opinions of Brigham Young, who (in that era) would you suggest could offer reasonable balance?

 

I'm not asking that you provide someone to give balance. I'm wondering if there's a pattern among the leadership of the Church of that era that sustains what you say Brigham Young taught and believed about the necessity of practicing plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation.

[wenglund]

Sound like an amazing pot/kettle situation to me. Considering how heterocentric and baby-making-centric the LDS faith is, I surprised you would offer up such a mess. Again, we see where Noam Chomsky was correct in saying there is no double standard but merely a self serving bigoted single standard. The LDS church is great place to have one's heterosexuality praised and molded into spiritual necessity. Then again, what the neo-conservative propagandists continually fail to understand that scripture and our relationships with God have nothing to do with sex.

 

That was a rather ugly stream of ad hominems (among several fallacies). I expected better of you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Whether people understood it properly at the time is another matter. But it is a pre-1890 source.

I think this is the key point.  There are many things that we understand now that were clearly not understood at the time.  I think this lesson and a little humility would teach us that there are things now that we are sure are doctrine which at some later time will be understood in a greatly different light.

[cursor]

I'm bowing out.

[rockpond]

Which he defines as having "had blessings offered unto them." Obviously, this cannot include those who have never been called upon to enter into it.

 

 

 

Obviously he has reference here to those who have been taught the principle of plural marriage and have been called upon to enter into it but refuse. What do you do with those who were never given the opportunity, were financially unable to do it, etc. Again, are you saying that Brigham taught these individuals, through no fault of their own, would never attain exaltation

 

What seem to be contradiction in doctrines taught may just be a failure on the part of the receiver to read for comprehension. And reading for comprehension entails judging whether one's own perceptions make sense. For instance, does it make sense that everyone who lived in Utah in the last 50 years of the 19th century who never practiced plural marriage were automatically discarded by Church leaders as candidates for exaltation? That's a strange -- and ultimately unsupportable -- notion.

 

I don't think it's a strange or unsupportable notion that BY believed only the highest level of exaltation was available to those who practiced polygamy in this life.  Other levels of exaltation in the celestial kingdom were still available to other members.  There were many "strong" doctrines taught regarding polygamy, and the evils of monogamy by church leaders back then.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think it's a strange or unsupportable notion that BY believed only the highest level of exaltation was available to those who practiced polygamy in this life. 

I've yet to see it persuasively supported here. The notion that the majority of Mormons in the 1800s would be deprived of full exaltation because they failed to accomplish something which they were incapable of accomplishing smacks of Calvinist doctrine. It is wholly out of keeping with Mormonism.

 

There were many "strong" doctrines taught regarding polygamy, and the evils of monogamy by church leaders back then.

 

 

I don't recall any teaching that monogamy was inherently evil. What comes to my mind is the indictment by Church leaders against many of those who were persecuting the saints for their practice of polygamy. The oppressors often were those who were apt to commit sexual sin, be guilty of infidelity, maintain mistresses, etc., even as they championed monogamy.

 

That is not a condemnation of monogamy per se. It is a condemnation of sexual immorality and hypocrisy.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

But even in his day and age and under his stewardship, most people were not required to practice it. Most of them couldn't. It is contrary to the justice of God -- and hardly makes sense -- that they would be held accountable for something they could not do.

 

Again it must be viewed in the context of the discourse, that they must be polygamists "in their faith," (that is, they must accept it in principle and concept) even if they were unable or not called to practice it literally.

I agree, and this is consistent with D&C 137, which has not changed prior to, or since, the discourse. I'm not quite sure why those who complain in behalf of those they hold up as poster children for the "have nots" ignore that.

[Damien the Leper]

I admit I'm approaching this subject with a layman's understanding. I'm probably out of my element and perhaps should cut my losses now.

 

But from what reading I've done, I've seen nothing yet to indicate that the Kinsey scale is as widely discredited as you claim here. Moreover, I understand that the field of psychology in recent years has been to some degree politicized by the influence of the gay-rights movement. I suspect that may have come into play here.

 

Bottom line: Controlling sexual inclination is more-or-less difficult for most everyone, and I remain unpersuaded that a typical person with a bisexual orientation is inherently incapable of controlling that aspect of his sexuality that it conducive to obeying the laws of God.

I didn't say discrdited but disagreed with. I know of a LDS psychologist at Family Services who disagrees with the 1 in 10 statistic greatly. I disagree with the statistic because it seems only applicable in a very general sense. It's difficult to apply the statistic to sub groups.

As for controlling sexual romantic inclinations, who a person falls in love with is their business. You're naturally attracted to whomever you're attracted to. No religious argument can be made to honestly dispute sexual orientation and romantic feelings. To attempt to do so is chasing the rabbit hole. Also, our romantic relationships don't necessarily have to have anything to do with God.

[Damien the Leper]

That was a rather ugly stream of ad hominems (among several fallacies). I expected better of you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The following are not ad homs. If you took them as such then that is your failure.

1. Heterocentric

2. Baby making centric

3. Bigoted single standard

4. Pot/kettle

5. Heterosexualality spiritually praised

6. Neo-conservative propagandists

The deepest fallacies in these sorts of arguments is placing a religious neo-conservative perspective above any other. Therein lies the roots of evil. The downfall of society is not challenges to a traditional family structure. It is the ignorance and iniquity consumed and born in the minds of jihadists (that was ad hom) such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Combs, O'Reilly, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, James Dobson and the countless like-minded drones.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Nemesis
Godwin's law violation,. You are out of the thread.

[JLHPROF]

I've yet to see it persuasively supported here. The notion that the majority of Mormons in the 1800s would be deprived of full exaltation because they were unable to accomplish something which they were incapable of accomplishing smacks of Calvinist doctrine. It is wholly out of keeping with Mormonism.

 

It was definitely taught:

"Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. "And is that religion popular in heaven?" It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise."  - Brigham Young

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe,  that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."- Joseph F. Smith

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young

 

 

I don't recall any teaching that monogamy was inherently evil. What comes to my mind is the indictment of Church leaders against many of those who were persecuting the saints for their practice of polygamy. The oppressors were those who were apt to commit sexual sin, be guilty of infidelity, maintain mistresses, etc., even as they championed monogamy.

 

Oh but they did have lovely things to say about monogamy:

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbors, depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole  them from the Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers." - Brigham Young

"If they envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their  practices;" - George A. Smith

"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans" - Orson Pratt

"We have another example in the three Hebrew children, who refused to bow down to a golden image that had been set up. Shall we call it  monogamy? [Laughter.] The conditions were that if they did not bow down to this golden image, they should be cast into a burning fiery furnace." -John Taylor

Edited October 9, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

It was definitely taught:

"Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. "And is that religion popular in heaven?" It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise."  - Brigham Young

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe,  that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."- Joseph F. Smith

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young

 

 

 

Oh but they did have lovely things to say about monogamy:

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbors, depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole  them from the Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers." - Brigham Young

"If they envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their  practices;" - George A. Smith

"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans" - Orson Pratt

"We have another example in the three Hebrew children, who refused to bow down to a golden image that had been set up. Shall we call it  monogamy? [Laughter.] The conditions were that if they did not bow down to this golden image, they should be cast into a burning fiery furnace." -John Taylor

References, please, so these quotes can be examined in context.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say discrdited but disagreed with. I know of a LDS psychologist at Family Services who disagrees with the 1 in 10 statistic greatly.

Does he think it too low or too high?

 

 I disagree with the statistic because it seems only applicable in a very general sense. It's difficult to apply the statistic to sub groups.

If you are referring to the prevalence of homosexuality in society, I'm not so much interested in the statistic as I am in the scale itself, which suggests that many people are at neither all the way at one orientation or all that way at another.

 

 

As for controlling sexual romantic inclinations, who a person falls in love with is their business. You're naturally attracted to whomever you're attracted to. No religious argument can be made to honestly dispute sexual orientation and romantic feelings. To attempt to do so is chasing the rabbit hole. Also, our romantic relationships don't necessarily have to have anything to do with God.

 

 

 

Surely you're not suggesting that a person can fall in love with and only one other person.

 

It has always been the teaching within the Church that one should marry within the covenant, and that, of course, courtship within the Church.

 

That's how it was when I grew up in the Church, and that's what I intend to perpetuate.

[JLHPROF]

References, please, so these quotes can be examined in context.

 

OK - added.

 

It was definitely taught:

"Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. "And is that religion popular in heaven?" It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise."  - Brigham Young JD 9:322

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe,  that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."- Joseph F. Smith JD 20:28-29

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." - Brigham Young JD 11:268-9

 

 

 

Oh but they did have lovely things to say about monogamy:

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbors, depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole  them from the Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers." - Brigham Young JD 9:322

"If they envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their  practices;" - George A. Smith JD 3:291

"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans" - Orson Pratt JD 13:195

"We have another example in the three Hebrew children, who refused to bow down to a golden image that had been set up. Shall we call it  monogamy? [Laughter.] The conditions were that if they did not bow down to this golden image, they should be cast into a burning fiery furnace." -John Taylor JD 28:35

[Damien the Leper]

Does he think it too low or too high?

 

If you are referring to the prevalence of homosexuality in society, I'm not so much interested in the statistic as I am in the scale itself, which suggests that many people are at neither all the way at one orientation or all that way at another.

 

 

 

Surely you're not suggesting that a person can fall in love with and only one other person.

 

It has always been the teaching within the Church that one should marry within the covenant, and that, of course, courtship within the Church.

 

That's how it was when I grew up in the Church, and that's what I intend to perpetuate.

 

He and I agree it's too high. Those who cannot be counted because they are not "out" cannot be included in the statistic as a variable. Such a number, no matter how great or small, is too vague.

 

I don't believe that there is a single person one can fall in love with. There will always be another as well as another who may be better suited for a person rather than the man or woman whom the are currently with. I understand the LDS path in courtship and marriage. I have no qualms with it.

[rockpond]

I've yet to see it persuasively supported here. The notion that the majority of Mormons in the 1800s would be deprived of full exaltation because they failed to accomplish something which they were incapable of accomplishing smacks of Calvinist doctrine. It is wholly out of keeping with Mormonism.

I don't recall any teaching that monogamy was inherently evil. What comes to my mind is the indictment by Church leaders against many of those who were persecuting the saints for their practice of polygamy. The oppressors often were those who were apt to commit sexual sin, be guilty of infidelity, maintain mistresses, etc., even as they championed monogamy.

That is not a condemnation of monogamy per se. It is a condemnation of sexual immorality and hypocrisy.

I've yet to see it persuasively refuted... I'm just taking him at his word. Whether or not it's true that the highest level of exaltation is reserved for those who practiced polygamy, it appears that he believed it. At least for a time. And that's fine. If I was gonna stress over everything that BY taught, I'd never have time to worry about the important stuff.

I have no idea what it was like to be a saint back then. And I don't know how they viewed President Young's teachings on this and other subjects. Maybe they felt that any "level" of exaltation was fine. Especially if they didn't want to practice polygamy. And clearly there were those who weren't fans lest why would we have all these quotes saying that you must support it in your heart?

Condemnation of monogamy? Here's one from George A. Smith:

"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch‑

backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations."

[Tacenda]

I can add the testimony of two of my great great great grandmothers who left journals for their descendants. They both entered into plural marriage as second wives (and had single suiters available) and gave as their reason a desire for exhalation. This came as a great personal sacrifice for both of them especially after they were all but abandoned post manifesto. It was clearly their understanding that the highest degree of exaltation required actually living the principle. Did they just misunderstand the doctrine of their day? Did they miss the sermons that said you just had to accept polygamy as a true principle and not actually live it? Maybe they just missed church the day the sermon on Jacob 2 was expounded upon?

I wonder if they were under the impression that they needed to be in the highest kingdom (exaltation) in order to live with God. I see that would be a big incentive for them and probably the only reason for most to marry someone they weren't in love with. But it is apparent now they never really needed to do that to live with God. And were probably deceived when they wed people they never really loved in the first place. Becoming like sacrificial lambs on the alter of polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

I wonder if they were under the impression that they needed to be in the highest kingdom (exaltation) in order to live with God. I see that would be a big incentive for them and probably the only reason for most to marry someone they weren't in love with. But it is apparent now they never really needed to do that to live with God. And were probably deceived when they wed people they never really loved in the first place. Becoming like sacrificial lambs on the alter of polygamy.

 

That's a heck of an assumption...that plural wives didn't love their husbands and were deceived into polygamy by Church leaders.   Or did you just mean this specific case that SeekingUnderstanding related because I don't see it there either?

Edited October 9, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

But even in his day and age and under his stewardship, most people were not required to practice it. Most of them couldn't. It is contrary to the justice of God -- and hardly makes sense -- that they would be held accountable for something they could not do.

 

Again it must be viewed in the context of the discourse, that they must be polygamists "in their faith," (that is, they must accept it in principle and concept) even if they were unable or not called to practice it literally.

Considering how they set up the Perpetual Emigration Fund to help other Saints move to Zion, surely if they believed that Exaltation was dependent on plural marriage they would have been financially supporting fellow Saints to participate in the process, especially those who had large number of wives or at the very least would have been sealing single women to men in monogamous relationships postdeath on a regular basis to ensure exaltation of both.

Edited October 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The notion that the majority of Mormons in the 1800s would be deprived of full exaltation because they failed to accomplish something which they were incapable of accomplishing smacks of Calvinist doctrine. It is wholly out of keeping with Mormonism.

 

Are there any journal entries or published comments from those in monogamous relationship that bemoan their future lack of exaltation?  OTOH do we have monogamous leaders teaching an anticipation of exaltation themselves or for their loved ones who had died without the opportunity?  What of the visions of the Celestial Kingdom and those seen there, such as Alvin?  Are they identified as exalted by chance?

[JLHPROF]

Are there any journal entries or published comments from those in monogamous relationship that bemoan their future lack of exaltation?  OTOH do we have monogamous leaders teaching an anticipation of exaltation themselves or for their loved ones who had died without the opportunity?  What of the visions of the Celestial Kingdom and those seen there, such as Alvin?  Are they identified as exalted by chance?

1. I don't know of any journal entries so I can't respond to that part of your post.

2. It would be hard for me to prove 100%, but the general policy in those days was that if you weren't a polygamist, you couldn't preside/be a leader.  So I doubt there would be many too quotes from "monogamous leaders" between 1852 & 1890 as there were very few.  There are numerous references to the requirement of leaders being polygamists to hold position.

3. Alvin would have had his temple work completed, either in Nauvoo or Utah, and I'd be willing to wager that he had plural wives sealed to him posthumously since he didn't get the opportunity while on earth.